How playing and debriefing/reflecting on two escape games influenced students&rsquo; perceptions on local climate governance and democracy

Simon, Marine; Budke, Alexandra

doi:10.5194/egusphere-2026-2308

Preprints

https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-2308

Preprints

04 May 2026

| 04 May 2026

Status: this preprint is open for discussion and under review for Geoscience Communication (GC).

How playing and debriefing/reflecting on two escape games influenced students’ perceptions on local climate governance and democracy

Marine Simon and Alexandra Budke

Abstract. Climate change presents major challenges for cities and requires local decision-making processes involving diverse stakeholders. At the same time, research shows that secondary students often hold misconceptions about climate-related measures, and that there is sometimes reduced support for democratic principles. Innovative educational approaches are therefore needed to foster students’ knowledge and engagement with local climate policy. Although gamification is considered as a promising strategy in climate education, little is known about how escape games supported by a debriefing/reflection phase can support learning about local climate governance and democratic processes. This study presents two educational escape games addressing local climate policy solutions, stakeholder perspectives, and urban decision-making. A pre- and post-test control group design was implemented with 172 secondary students (aged 14–20) from Germany, Italy, and Spain. All students played one of the games; the experimental group participated in a structured debriefing/reflection phase, while the control group did not. We analysed changes in students’ perceptions of local political stakeholders and their opinions on democratic decision-making at the city level. Results indicate that playing the escape games led to students’ better understanding of stakeholders, of their own role, and of governance processes in the context of addressing climate change-related issues. However, students who engaged in the debriefing demonstrated more differentiated perceptions. Students expressed mostly support for democratic processes; however, after playing without debriefing/reflecting, some students did significantly less support democratic decision-making, whereas students who debriefed/reflected the games did not. The findings underline the crucial role of structured debriefing/reflection in transforming an escape game experience into political and democratic learning.

Received: 22 Apr 2026 – Discussion started: 04 May 2026

Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this paper. While Copernicus Publications makes every effort to include appropriate place names, the final responsibility lies with the authors. Views expressed in the text are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher.

Download & links

Marine Simon and Alexandra Budke

Status: open (until 14 Jul 2026)

Post a comment Subscribe to comment alert

RC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2026-2308', Marieke de Wijse-van Heeswijk, 29 May 2026 reply

dear Authors, thank you for the opportunity to read your manuscript. I think you can convert it into an good paper but with extra data collection and the directions I provided you with in the review. I hope the comments are supportive to your work and bring you guidance in working on this publication. I see you put great effort in producing a well structured clear manuscript and I can see the relevance of it though it needs sharpening. So I think it will be worth the effort to work on major revisions. If you need further clarification you can contact me at marieke.dewijse-vanheeswijk@ru.nl. I wish you well in working on this manuscript so it can become an examplary one for other authors. best Marieke

Reply

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-2308-RC1
- RC2:
  'Reply on RC1', Marieke de Wijse-van Heeswijk, 29 May 2026 reply
  
  I am sorry I forgot to add this (I am new to this system) these are some more general comments on how to improve your paper
  Review of "How playing and debriefing/reflecting on two escape games influenced students' perceptions on local climate governance and democracy"
  
  The manuscript addresses an important and timely topic situated at the intersection of climate education, local governance, democratic participation, and game-based learning. The focus on local climate governance and the attempt to empirically investigate the role of debriefing/reflection after gameplay are potentially valuable contributions. The manuscript is generally well structured, the literature base is relatively broad, and the paper addresses themes that are relevant for Geoscience Communication.
  
  At the same time, I have substantial conceptual and methodological concerns regarding the current version of the manuscript. In its present form, I do not believe the paper provides sufficiently robust conceptual grounding or methodological clarity to support several of its central claims and interpretations. My concerns are outlined below.
  
  1. Conceptual ambiguity regarding gamification, games, and simulation gaming
  
  A major conceptual issue concerns the paper's use of the term "gamification". The manuscript repeatedly positions the intervention within the gamification literature, yet the intervention itself consists of fully developed escape games involving stakeholder interaction, resource allocation, governance dilemmas, competing interests, collaborative problem-solving, and structured debriefing/reflection phases.
  
  Conceptually, this appears much closer to serious gaming, escape games, or simulation gaming approaches than to gamification in the narrower sense of adding game elements to non-game educational contexts.
  
  The paper would therefore benefit from much clearer conceptual positioning regarding:
  
  * gamification;
  
  * serious games;
  
  * simulation games;
  
  * escape games;
  
  * and experiential/simulation-based learning.
  
  At present, these concepts appear partially conflated. Furthermore, much of the theoretical grounding (Crookall, Kolb, Kriz, experiential learning, debriefing literature) aligns more strongly with the simulation gaming field than with gamification research.
  
  2. Overly strong and insufficiently substantiated novelty claims
  
  Several novelty claims in the manuscript are formulated too strongly and are insufficiently substantiated. Statements such as:
  
  * "no escape game is available";
  
  * "there is no debriefing or reflection material";
  
  * and "no game or debriefing was evaluated"
  
  require a much more systematic literature review strategy than is currently provided.
  
  The manuscript does not sufficiently clarify:
  
  * which databases/search engines were consulted;
  
  * which keywords were used;
  
  * what inclusion/exclusion criteria were applied;
  
  * how "escape game", "local governance", "stakeholder complexity", or "democratic decision-making" were operationalised;
  
  * or whether adjacent fields such as simulation gaming, policy gaming, role-play simulations, civic engagement games, sustainability games, and participatory governance simulations were included in the review scope.
  
  While the exact combination of local climate governance, escape games, and debriefing may indeed be relatively uncommon, the current wording suggests a much broader absence of prior work than can reasonably be supported.
  
  The novelty claims should therefore either be substantially softened or supported through a transparent and systematic review strategy.
  
  3. Fundamental conceptual and operationalisation problems
  
  My primary concern relates to the relationship between the theoretical claims of the paper and the empirical measurements actually used.
  
  Throughout the manuscript, terms such as:
  
  * learning;
  
  * understanding;
  
  * democratic engagement;
  
  * governance insight;
  
  * democratic support;
  
  * perceptions;
  
  * opinions;
  
  * and engagement
  
  are frequently used in close connection and sometimes appear to be treated as partially interchangeable.
  
  However, the empirical measurements mainly consist of:
  
  * Likert-scale ratings concerning stakeholder importance;
  
  * and agreement/disagreement with normative statements about democratic decision-making.
  
  This creates a major conceptual tension between:
  
  * the broad claims made regarding learning, democratic understanding, governance complexity, and engagement;
  
  * and the comparatively narrow operationalisation through self-reported perceptions and attitudes.
  
  For example:
  
  * changes in perceived stakeholder importance;
  
  * or changes in agreement with democratic statements
  
  do not necessarily demonstrate:
  
  * deeper understanding of governance complexity;
  
  * democratic competence;
  
  * political literacy;
  
  * systems thinking;
  
  * or learning in a stronger educational sense.
  
  At several points, the interpretation of the results appears broader than what the measurements can robustly support.
  
  The manuscript would therefore require much clearer distinctions between:
  
  * perceptions;
  
  * opinions/attitudes;
  
  * engagement;
  
  * knowledge;
  
  * democratic orientations;
  
  * and learning outcomes.
  
  In its current form, the paper risks overinterpreting relatively limited self-report measures.
  
  4. Implicit normative framing
  
  The manuscript appears to contain an implicit normative model of democratic governance and participation, yet this is not explicitly theorised or critically reflected upon.
  
  The paper consistently frames:
  
  * participatory governance;
  
  * pluralistic decision-making;
  
  * multi-stakeholder engagement;
  
  * and deliberative democratic processes
  
  as desirable outcomes.
  
  Conversely, support for more centralised or authoritative decision-making is implicitly framed as problematic.
  
  This is visible in:
  
  * the framing around "democratic deconsolidation";
  
  * formulations such as "to counter this";
  
  * and the interpretation of findings concerning democratic attitudes.
  
  Normative positioning in democratic education research is not inherently problematic. However, in the present manuscript, the normative assumptions remain largely implicit while simultaneously shaping the interpretation of the empirical findings.
  
  This becomes especially important because:
  
  * the study concerns political and democratic attitudes;
  
  * the participants are minors;
  
  * and the intervention aims to shape perceptions regarding governance and democracy.
  
  The manuscript would therefore benefit from a much more explicit reflection on its normative assumptions and educational positioning.
  
  5. Weaknesses in the study design and sample composition
  
  The methodological design raises substantial concerns.
  
  Although the overall sample size (N = 172) may be acceptable for exploratory educational research, the effective subgroup sizes are small and highly uneven. More importantly, country, intervention condition, and game modality appear partially confounded.
  
  For example:
  
  * German students only appear in the experimental condition;
  
  * Spanish students only appear in the control condition;
  
  * and the paper-based game is predominantly associated with the experimental condition.
  
  As a consequence, it becomes difficult to disentangle:
  
  * gameplay effects;
  
  * debriefing effects;
  
  * facilitator/context effects;
  
  * country/cultural differences;
  
  * language differences;
  
  * and game modality effects.
  
  The argument that groups can be combined because Kruskal-Wallis tests were non-significant should also be treated cautiously. With relatively small and uneven groups, non-significant findings do not demonstrate equivalence and may simply reflect limited statistical power.
  
  The study therefore appears exploratory and indicative rather than capable of supporting stronger causal claims regarding the role of debriefing/reflection.
  
  6. Research questions and analytical focus
  
  The research questions would benefit from substantial clarification.
  
  Currently, they combine:
  
  * gameplay;
  
  * debriefing/reflection;
  
  * stakeholder perceptions;
  
  * democratic attitudes;
  
  * and local governance
  
  within single questions.
  
  At the same time, the study design explicitly distinguishes between:
  
  * gameplay only;
  
  * and gameplay plus debriefing/reflection.
  
  The research questions should therefore more clearly distinguish:
  
  * the effects of gameplay;
  
  * from the additional effects of debriefing.
  
  At present, the analytical focus remains somewhat diffuse.
  
  7. Language and style
  
  The manuscript is generally readable and reasonably well structured. However, several sections adopt a somewhat normative or policy-oriented tone rather than a consistently analytical academic style.
  
  Examples include:
  
  * "To counter this";
  
  * "there is a need to";
  
  * "it is imperative";
  
  * and similar formulations.
  
  Some sections also contain repetitive wording and recurring transitional phrases ("therefore", "however", "it has been shown", etc.). A stylistic revision could improve readability and strengthen the scholarly tone of the manuscript.
  
  Recommendation
  
  Although the topic is relevant and potentially valuable for the journal, I currently have major concerns regarding:
  
  * conceptual clarity;
  
  * construct operationalisation;
  
  * the relationship between empirical measurements and interpretative claims;
  
  * implicit normative assumptions;
  
  * and the methodological robustness of the study design.
  
  In particular, I do not believe the current operationalisation sufficiently supports the broader claims made about learning, democratic understanding, governance complexity, and engagement.
  
  Reply
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-2308-RC2
  - EC1: 'Thanks for RC2', David Crookall, 29 May 2026 reply
    
    Many thanks, Marieka, for your excellent and thorough review.
    
    Reply
    
    Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-2308-EC1

Marine Simon and Alexandra Budke

Viewed

Total article views: 196 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)

HTML	PDF	XML	Total	BibTeX	EndNote
109	76	11	196	13	16

HTML: 109
PDF: 76
XML: 11
Total: 196
BibTeX: 13
EndNote: 16

Views and downloads (calculated since 04 May 2026)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
May 2026	82	70	10	162
Jun 2026	27	6	1	34

Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 04 May 2026)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
May 2026	82	70	10	162
Jun 2026	27	6	1	34

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 194 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 194 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.

Country	#	Views	%

Latest update: 14 Jun 2026

Short summary

We developed and tested two escape games addressing local climate policy, stakeholder perspectives, and democratic decision-making. Playing the games and debriefing afterwards made the students better understand the stakeholders and their own role. Most students supported democratic processes to take climate-related decisions, although some of them did not. The findings show how important it is to have a proper debrief after playing when it comes to learning about climate politics and democracy.


Total:	0
HTML:	0
PDF:	0
XML:	0